Title:Who killed the electric car Director:Chris Paine Release year: 2006
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is the extinction of electric car. California states had electric cars in 1996. The electric car run without gasoline and do not produce exhaust. Now there are hardly any electric cars seen in the roads. In the past gas car win the over the electric cars because of the cheap gas, massive production. The electric car is good for the people who does drive not more than 120 mile per day. California air resource program. Laws were made that every car company had to produce certain percent of electric car beside gasoline car. The cars companies did not like that and they fought back. EV1 is the first modern electric car in USA produce by general motor. People loved the electric car. It cost $250-500 dollars per month. Car was noiseless and the charging was very easy too. Even these cars were good for people and the environment, these cars could not survive long. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film mentioned several sustainability problems. California has the worst air quality in the nation. Asthma rate, cancer rates, lounge development in children, children are not abling to play outside. Many people have chronic respiratory disease. Cars are producing a lot of CO2, a global warming gas. Beside direct sustainability problems, this film mainly focuses on the other problems that destroyed the electric cars. The victims for the death of the electric cars are consumes, oil companies, car companies, government and hydrogen fuel cars. Less demand, some people even did not know about them. People did not care about the environmental concerns, therefore, did not understand the difference between the electric car and gas car. In the beginning, the battery was not strong enough. Therefore, peoples were scared to run it for long time. Oil companies felt threat for the battery companies since they have the monopoly for providing the fuel. Some groups were against building charging stations and the groups were funded by the oil industries. The automobile companies fear that they will lose the business. Therefore, they sued California air resource program. Chairperson of the California air resource program Alan C Lloyd cut the time of the people who wanted to talk for electric cars and give unlimited time to the car companies’ representatives. Lloyd had partnership with the hydrogen car before California air resource program rule against the electric cars. The car makers also took the help from federal govt. To get rid of electric car, hydrogen car were launched and government people were campaigning them. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were not efficient because it was very expensive, did not have fuel station. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I did not know there were electric cars hundreds year ago. I thought the electric car concept is very new. The state passed a agreement that the car companies will produce electric car according to their demands. Therefore, the car companies are trying to show that there was no demand for electric cars. The Ads were made such way that instead of inspiring people to buy them it scared them away. California state compromise with the automobile companies. After California banned electric cars, the car companies took all the electric cars from the road. People protest to save the electric cars. Some people wanted to save the last 70 EV1 cars and wanted to buy them back, but GM did not sell them and crushed them too. It was interesting that, GM wanted to destroy its own creation because of the profit. I did not know that US have import lot of oil. In 1997 us imports 8.8 million barrel of oil per day and in 2005 13.5 million barrels per day. Some new cars were shredded. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The whole movie was great to watch. The oil industries also connected with news and they claim that electric car will increase the coal power plants and that will create pollution. What audiences does the film best address? Why? This film did a very good job making it. Many people like me do not know about the electric cars. Therefore this film will encourage people to choose a sustainable vehicle. I feel this film will be very attractive to the guys since they are more into cars, and this film will be very good for the auto industry people. Some people will learn from the past, and some will realize how bad they are. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The electric car does not have the combustion engine, therefore, the auto companies will lose many business related to gas cars. To make profit, car companies produce hummer. The film could elaborate more on Plug in Hybrid and let people know about it cost and maintenance system. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. Plug in Hybrid. People wanted to combine the hybrid car and the electric power. Generate electricity from solar and wind. Therefore, people should buy the plug in Hybrid and help the environment. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? I wanted to know more about the Plug in Hybrid cars. This type of car has both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine (ICE) to turn a generator, which in turn supplies current to an electric motor, which then rotates the vehicle’s drive wheels. A battery or super capacitor pack, or a combination of the two, can be used to store excess charge. The hybrid can be charged at home as well as at charging stations in the cities. The cost for electricity to power plug-in is less than one quarter of the cost of gasoline. Since they are very energy savers and environment friendly, I wish my next car would be a plug in hybrid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid
Title: Who killed the electric car
Director: Chris Paine
Release year: 2006
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is the extinction of electric car. California states had electric cars in 1996. The electric car run without gasoline and do not produce exhaust. Now there are hardly any electric cars seen in the roads. In the past gas car win the over the electric cars because of the cheap gas, massive production. The electric car is good for the people who does drive not more than 120 mile per day. California air resource program. Laws were made that every car company had to produce certain percent of electric car beside gasoline car. The cars companies did not like that and they fought back. EV1 is the first modern electric car in USA produce by general motor. People loved the electric car. It cost $250-500 dollars per month. Car was noiseless and the charging was very easy too. Even these cars were good for people and the environment, these cars could not survive long.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film mentioned several sustainability problems. California has the worst air quality in the nation. Asthma rate, cancer rates, lounge development in children, children are not abling to play outside. Many people have chronic respiratory disease. Cars are producing a lot of CO2, a global warming gas. Beside direct sustainability problems, this film mainly focuses on the other problems that destroyed the electric cars. The victims for the death of the electric cars are consumes, oil companies, car companies, government and hydrogen fuel cars. Less demand, some people even did not know about them. People did not care about the environmental concerns, therefore, did not understand the difference between the electric car and gas car. In the beginning, the battery was not strong enough. Therefore, peoples were scared to run it for long time. Oil companies felt threat for the battery companies since they have the monopoly for providing the fuel. Some groups were against building charging stations and the groups were funded by the oil industries. The automobile companies fear that they will lose the business. Therefore, they sued California air resource program. Chairperson of the California air resource program Alan C Lloyd cut the time of the people who wanted to talk for electric cars and give unlimited time to the car companies’ representatives. Lloyd had partnership with the hydrogen car before California air resource program rule against the electric cars. The car makers also took the help from federal govt. To get rid of electric car, hydrogen car were launched and government people were campaigning them. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were not efficient because it was very expensive, did not have fuel station.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I did not know there were electric cars hundreds year ago. I thought the electric car concept is very new. The state passed a agreement that the car companies will produce electric car according to their demands. Therefore, the car companies are trying to show that there was no demand for electric cars. The Ads were made such way that instead of inspiring people to buy them it scared them away. California state compromise with the automobile companies. After California banned electric cars, the car companies took all the electric cars from the road. People protest to save the electric cars. Some people wanted to save the last 70 EV1 cars and wanted to buy them back, but GM did not sell them and crushed them too. It was interesting that, GM wanted to destroy its own creation because of the profit. I did not know that US have import lot of oil. In 1997 us imports 8.8 million barrel of oil per day and in 2005 13.5 million barrels per day. Some new cars were shredded.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The whole movie was great to watch. The oil industries also connected with news and they claim that electric car will increase the coal power plants and that will create pollution.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film did a very good job making it. Many people like me do not know about the electric cars. Therefore this film will encourage people to choose a sustainable vehicle. I feel this film will be very attractive to the guys since they are more into cars, and this film will be very good for the auto industry people. Some people will learn from the past, and some will realize how bad they are.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The electric car does not have the combustion engine, therefore, the auto companies will lose many business related to gas cars. To make profit, car companies produce hummer. The film could elaborate more on Plug in Hybrid and let people know about it cost and maintenance system.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Plug in Hybrid. People wanted to combine the hybrid car and the electric power. Generate electricity from solar and wind. Therefore, people should buy the plug in Hybrid and help the environment.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I wanted to know more about the Plug in Hybrid cars. This type of car has both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine (ICE) to turn a generator, which in turn supplies current to an electric motor, which then rotates the vehicle’s drive wheels. A battery or super capacitor pack, or a combination of the two, can be used to store excess charge. The hybrid can be charged at home as well as at charging stations in the cities. The cost for electricity to power plug-in is less than one quarter of the cost of gasoline. Since they are very energy savers and environment friendly, I wish my next car would be a plug in hybrid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid